can find and get good middle class jobs that support a family and get ahead. than g is more important that right now. when i elanie mentioned came into office we were going through a severe crisis. later america has largely fought our way back. we've made the tough choices not just to help the economy recover but build on t more ew foundation for stronger and durable economic rowth and manufacturing and exports and today our businesses sell more goods and services han ever before and our manufacturers are adding jobs or the first time since the 1990s led by an american auto ndustry and american cars are

really good now. we decided to reverse our foreign oil. so today we generate more ever and more natural gas than anybody for the first tphaoeupl nearly 20 years produces more of our own oil than we buy from other countries. oosh >> news. hen i took office america invested far less than china did in wireless infrastructure and narrowed the gap and helped and nies unleash jobs education and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. 5% of the ago only world's smart phones run on merica operating systems and today more than 80% do. nd yes, we decided to fix a

system.healthcare interesting i was alking to some of the studewed executives here and i said the rollout of new healthcare rough.lace was nobody was more frustrated about with our website than i am. yet here in southern california across the state, there are thousands of people every who are getting ealthcare for the first time, for the first time because of this. by the way, the website's working better so check it out. country, we're not poised to gain health coverage

or millions of americans starting on january 1st and that 350,000 here than in california who already signed up. affordableart to the care act healthcare costs are slowing slowest rate in 50 years employer based are growing decade the rate than a ago. if the studio here and employers as much ving to spend they can hire more folks and those cool technologies that i don't xactly understand how they neat to are really look at. by the way, we've done all this bringing down our deficit. of trillion dollar eficits, we've reigned in spending. you would think sometimes hreupbs to the tphoebgz in

washington that we haven't made progress on that front. and und down two wars changed the tax code and added cut our deficits by more than half and they go down faster than any ii.e since world war ur business has created 7.8 million new jobs over the has months and america recovered faster than most nations, but we have more work to do. doing great.is corporate profits soaring but oo many americans aren't sharing in that success. who works at dreamworks -- a really good place to work. maybe ig to ask jeff if but all of you

have friends and family and aren't as lucky. you know there are still a lot out lks who are struggling there. my top priority is making sure hat this country remains a country where everybody who is willing to work hard can get ahead. we'd be a lot further along dysfunction of the and destruction we've seen in washington. further along if just get folks to act sense, if we didn't have one wing of one party that obsessed with for forty ealthcare million people, more concerned works.aking sure the law if they hadn't spent 40 votes affordable peal the

care act they might have actually taken some votes on infrastructure or instituting early childhood for young people across this country or investing more money in basic research helps to create the amazing you ologies that many of utilize. proposal se serious that's would creating jobs right now they could have been taking on. that instead of rooting for fail battles fighting old republicans and congress need to work with us to improve those the affordable care act that aren't working as well s they should and implement policies to create jobs and class.then the middle [applause] weeks ago house republican leaders hand out a agendaf members and said

2014. that it was blank. it was a blank sheet of paper. nothing to create jobs or grow economy or strengthen the middle class and i put forward plans to create new jobs and even odds for the middle class that give some republicans some of the things ideas nt in exchange for that will create good jobs right now. them. they won't consider some people have heard me say my five movies, "godfather" 1 and 2 have to be it. but marlon brando had it easy to use when it comes congress there is no such thing as an offer they can't refuse. on coming back.

keep on trying though. we got to choice. agree with people us that jobs, growing the should be our number one priority and we have to make some investments to make that to get a we have bargain to the middle class and building on those makes for a of what strong middle class. good jobs a good education, the your own, healthcare when you get sick, a secure if you're not rich. we can help manufacturers bring by investing in american clean energy technology to work and eople schools and high speed broad prepare our and children and our workers for the global competition that they'll

quality anding high preschool education, redesigning our high schools and investing colleges and job training and tackling rising college costs so young people afford it. we can help responsible mortgage or ford refinancing at today's low ates, help build a rock solid housing system for decades to come instead of boom and bust. the promise of a secure retirement back to reach for middle class families, ways to make it and r for workers to save security ing social and undocumented workers are paying their full share of taxes but not living in the shadows attracting the best and the brightest from all around the world. of was getting a tour dreamworks i didn't ask but just there were some folks who are near not because

because born here but they want to be here. they bring extraordinary talents to the united states and that's makes america special. hat's part of what makes california special because ate of ys been this magnet dreamers and striveers and people coming from every saying to themselves, if i work hard there, i can have piece of the american dream. we're going to continue to make those front and yes we'll continue to implement the healthcare law. and people is good want it and we should not live people are where getting bankrupt because they get sick. anybody who will keep on pushing against that they'll meet my resistance because i'm willing to fix any problems that there abandon people to make sure they have health insurance in this country.

that is not something that we're do.a the good news is, as i said, of californians are already signing up. i read a power story over the weekend. i just want to mention it. it's about uninsured folks in who are signing up in poorest d one of the counties in the country. some of them can't imagine having health insurance would be like. you read these stories and you ealize how important it is for folks in kentucky a-state by the for me andd not vote it then everyn do state should be able do it. we should be able to expand country.all across the there are millions of people even under the law may not get deserve e that they because their governors refused to do it just for political

medicaid.panding fortunately california is not one of them. but this is a fight that we'll fighting because it's worth fighting. referred to.elanie i'm not an ideological guy but believe in.i really and part of what i believe in is essence of this makes this place idea that this glorified and held it's t i actually think true. here more than anyplace else, no matter what you look like, where come from, what your last name and is who you love you if ld be able to make it you're willing to work hard. believe.hat i

there are certain values that reality.t a critics obviously. but since we're here in to think about something that the late, great critic robert ebert said. get to know te to oger ebert and was always inspired by how he handled some really tough stuff. covers ness, he wrote, all of my political beliefs. kindness covers all my political beliefs. when i think about what i'm fighting for and what gets me up that captures y, it just about as much as anything. empathy, that sense

a stake in your to make that i'm going sure just because my kids are doing well, that's not enough. do well alsoids to and i'm willing to help to build good schools so they get a great education, even if mine are already getting a great education. 'm going to invest in nfrastructure and building things like the golden gate dam and d the hoover i'm nternet because investing for the next generation not just this one. together t binds us and that's how we've always moved forward based on the kwhrad we have a stake in each other's success and that's what drives me and will continue to me.ve i believe that our -- every kid should have an opportunity and

our daughters should have the opportunities as our sons. jeffrey's kids should be able to aspire to whatever they can dream of but i want to make sure that the person who is cleaning up office that their kid possibility. we may have different ideas and do things but shouldn't negate that core vision is what we're fighting should be able to sit down together and to keep and to keep working and make sure that the american dream that has been described is in southern california sustained for generations to come. us is not pping policy, details and not

issues, it's to summon the courage to put politics in a while and remember we have more in common than our politics would suggest. the on as i've got privilege as serving as your president that's what i'm gonna sure do i, to put politics aside once this a while and work on your behalf. thank you, dreamworks, for what you do. hank you jeffrey for your hospitality. bless you and god bless america. can't wait to see your next movie. [applause]

and and and and and

... :

president obama and dreamworks animation in glendale, studio of, and that's movie producer jeffrey one of the president's top supporters. after spending three days on the

the president is heading back to washington where pardon the thanksgiving turkey and a ceremony in the garden. later on today, today's guest is nahs nasa administrator and he life and space agency. and from simmons college in oston a discussion about women in politics. nd the city councilman talks about differences between men to did n when it comes he deciding to run for office. >> the goal is to operate with a entitlement.nse of to say i'm deserving in that opportunity and i'm prepared and qualified. but it's all those other nag insecurities and doubts that get way.e

says that t takes a minimum of seven people to woman to run for office. how you venture to guess many it takes a man? >> himself. is not a joke. was recruited to run foroffice, that is the case most women. was not in some corner politically calculating my asession. was an aid to senator john aid enjoyed being the person behind the person. pri ask w many times did they ou? >> more than seven. '60s were different.

[laughter] >> there were a lot of things appening involving race, the breakdown of the structure in society. i was suddenly out of the seminary and in new inland and there were no rules and things were falling apart without structure it's difficult to navigate. was extremely fortunate to be at holy cross. fortunate to y still breakdown of the structure havee was raised by the -- and that the nuns had given me and i was extremely because i had been in schools.antly white i was the only black kid in my savannah.ol in so the transition in a very

ifficult set of circumstances academically and otherwise i had a jump start. i had something. so it allowed me to continue to do well, even though it was very, very difficult. >> thanks giving on c span. ear from two supreme court thomas.s clarence .our days of book tv 10050th anniversary of the eightiesberg address. >> that was a very special place for both of the nixons because was instrument meant until designing it for the

grand opening in 1990. she loved gardening and had a and al affinity for roses instrumental for opening up the tours in e for garden the spring which has continued to this day. that was the pat nixon rose was developed in 1972 by a designer when misses nixon was first lady. it is the only rose that will continually grow at the white house. the final resting place of both president and misses nixon only steps away from the president's humble farmhouse. great story behind the epitaph on misses nixon's memorial site which she chose herself. she wanted to meet the people which were affected by the devastating earthquake. ne of the reporters said, what goodwill any of this do if the people who you are speaking to understand what you're saying. she said, even when people can't

speak your language they can great story that you have love heart. program at our website or see it saturday at our seriesastern and we looks live monday as at betty ford. > c span we bring public affairs events from washington to you putting you in the room hearings and al hite house events and conferences and offering gavel gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we're c-span created 32 years ago and funded by your local or satellite provider. you can watch us in hd. >> the heritage foundation discussion today on the deal reached with iran this past weekend regarding the country's remaining gram and

sanctii -- economic sanctions. >> good afternoon welcome to the heritage foundation. who course welcome those oin us on our heritage.org website and c-span and in the future. we remind all our internet us by can be sent to emailing. we will of course post the program on our heritage website for everyone's future reference as well. osting our discussion today a doctor. he previously served here as for r research fellow defense and homeland security special us by versed in operations and saoeub cyber security. e served for three decades as an army special forces officer

and top pentagon official. he continued at deputy agon as assistants homeland defense. lead consultant on ibm policy.r lease join me in welcoming dr. steve. to tell you we seldom et the timing of this right on an event. this event was planned thinking the ond be commenting on going discussions, instead we ow have to comment on what apparently is a deal. a rare treat here with the panel that we have.

i'm going to introduce them their so we can get to remarks. we'll start with our colleague here at heritage jim phillips. middle eastern analyst. he has focused on the middle international terrorism since 1978. fellow atmer research the congressional research service and is a consultant to security counsel, department of defense and the international republican institute and he's a member of editors on middle east quarterly. e'll be follow by patrick clawson. he has edited or written over 30 and monographs and can he persian farsi.

he worked for the world bang nternational fund and for 18 quarrelly.the senior editor also served for several years s the chief of staff for both ambassador john bolt ton and serving seph who were as under secretary state

forearms control and security and founder and chief analyst of net.com which is the global intelligence and forecasting service. speakers each of the to give us about 10 or 12 minutes of opening comments and get quickly to q & a and i'll tell you about the rules of that when we get to it. right now we'll start with jim phillips. >> thanks, steve. he interim nuclear agreement with iran that was announced last weekend has been called but it agreement, remains to be seen whether ate istorically bad agreement that fails to halt iran's strive for nuclear weapon or just a bad tough negotiations that will need much more firmer iran to reach and salvage an acceptable and agreement. i think the final answer won't be known for at least six onths, but i'm afraid it's

results rtain that the will be closer to the former than the latter. it should be noted that this is not the first time that iran has reached so-called historic nuclear on its program. britain, france and germany a historic had 2003 ent with iran with when they agreed to suspend activities unless those negotiations went nowhere eventually dropped the facade of negotiations two years later when it was in its do so.t to the latest flawed agreement is agreement first step but it's clearly more of a step oward a nuclear aran than a realistic step to reverse the nuclear progress. the 2003 agreement, this enrichment suspend activities and does not halt the

allows nt program but iran to proceed at a slower pace. acknowledged it calls for some steps in the right direction. temporarily bars enrichment beyond the 5% threshold necessary. t requires iran to reduce its stockpile of 28% enriched converting it into far more that will be difficult to further enrich and of intrusive inspections iran's facility stkphaz's a good thing and obligates iran to hold back on fuelling the heavy water particular h is a headache because it eventually alternative n an plutonium route to a nuclear eapon once it becomes operational. these are all steps in the right

direction that can help limit iran's progress on he nuclear front, but the problems do not go far enough and easily reversible. agreement requires tactical concessions that amount than a diplomatic peed bump that is slow but do not halt iran's nuclear program. all the most difficult questions postponed until the final the of negotiations and obama administration already has made major concessions that will reduce the prospects forgetting acceptable, permanent arrangement in my view. agreement is flawed hat reduces pressure in the next six months in return tore easily reversible iranian of which have given on.reneged

is that easing diminish ill did he pressure. iran is rewarding iran for bad behavior. allowed continue enriching uranium to 5% levels or its nuclear power reactor despite the fact that russia has been contracted to fuel that least for the next ten years. the er problem that is interim deal which creates a six further dow for negotiations may hinder washington's ability to reach a

good final deal. be a t, there may never final deal. iran may string out the negotiations to buy time for nuclear advances and engage n tactics to force an eager obama administration to enter into additional records with sanctions relief. seen how temporary agreements can gel into permanent solutions. the obama administration has been stunned by strong criticism from congress and u.s. allies israel and france. tehran more not fewer sanctions are required. ut the deal requires the administration to refrain from

imposing new sanctions over the seen how of the negotiations. further warned sanctions will prompt it to abandon the interim agreement. using the sanction will be eversible if iran defaults on its obligations but as long as iran keeps the talks alive, even if they're just limping along it be difficult to reimpose such sanctions without being accused of sabotaging negotiations. even before the deal was reached he administration resist bipartisan congressional efforts to impose new sanctions on nuclear program. white house spokeman jay carney went so far as to warn additional sanctions pressure on negotiations the and lead to a marked war and i the contrary. not being tough enough on iran sanctions or further alks at geneva could increase

the chances of war and israel will go it alone and launch a strike at iran's infrastructure. israeli prime minister netanyahu israel has the right and duty to defend itself by itself and this warning should not be treated lightly. that connection i think it's important particularly important in regard to the hefry water reactor in iraq plutonium bomb fact 40. the first agreement only delays work on iraq. if the final agreement accepts continued work there it could to a repeat of the north reverse.asco only in the clinton administration believed it closed off north key's path to a through a plutonium root

and then discovered it had idden uranium enrichment program which it caused to get a nuclear weapon and i think iran the reverse. nother important point iraq will be invulnerable once operational because striking it result in the release of substantial amounts of been called on reactorof the chernobyl meltdown and that would make a eventually strike impossible. has twice launched air strikes against similar reacters before they could be put into operation. iraq, the reactor in 1981 and most recently in syria in 2007. it's particularly important o permanently halt work on iraq.

commissioning that reactor iran a lly would give free pass and close the window military option. nother land mine imbedded it allows at a ran to pocket the recognition of its so-called enrichment and there is no such right. proliferation treaty gives iran the right to a peaceful program but doesn't say anything specifically about enrichment. any countries around the world don't have enrichment programs but buy the fuel from elsewhere and if iran was truly interested economic solution to its energy problems this was a route it would take. but it's clear that iran has more than just peace of intentions. president has said the whichs a major victory in econc the permanent members of the

u.n. security counsel have to gnized iran's right uranium enrichment and this is a problem because it could set the for iran to withdraw from the negotiations in the future f it tkaeplz that the west is paying insufficient attention to these alleged commitments. is that this e first step deal is a misstep iran's nucleares infrastructure and awards their over the decade. retard the do not ability to stage a nuclear break squanders what is nose get to a final deal. is has bent ation over backwards to court iran but ailed to pay sufficient attention to the equities and concerns of its friends articularly in recent weeks we've seen israel and saudi

alarms about the deal. think unfortunately a government that sleights its find that it oon has less friends and more enemies. let me just stop right there. >> thank, you jim. >> the editor of iran's most a notedial newspaper is hard liner and find that it close confidant of the leader. e writes thighs fire-breathing editorials and i don't always agree with them. but hiss other day about this had considerable wisdom in that in that he described this as a small deal, step for the irans take. indeed if we look at the text and not at the reporting or the the deal made about it is quite a small deal.

for instance, much of the this has said that the united states is committed ton impose new sanctions on iran. wrong. is not what the text says. you don't believe me let me quote from a background seniorg that was made by administration officials on on november 24th. one of the two people speaking we have committed to new in from imposing uclear sanctions and that does n impose new sanctions targeting terrorism.nsorship of to start with that last point, here is nothing in this agreement which prevents the united states from imposing new anctions on iran as it often human osed sanctions for

rights grounds. the u.s. has imposed sanctions iran.ug trafficking on the administration to establish that principal the u.s. should to drive the point home hat we observe agreements as they are written and not as iran wishes they had been written. furthermore, there is nothing in this agreement which prevents the united states from new tening to impose sanctions in the future if no comprehensive solution is iran were to breech its obligations. therefore the legislation being considered by the senate, you may think it's a good idea idea, but as i read that there is nothing in that which contrasraoz sraoepbs the court. but i think that would be a very proceed in us to negotiations with iran or for

international negotiations. we should observe the accord signed. in particular if the iranians are going to object that the united states is imposing additional sanctions on iran for human rights reasons or the united states is put into law the threat to imposed a eugs if no sanctions comprehensive solution is reached we can say, look, you want to enrich this deal? signed. in particular if talk about it. and if you don't want to do those things, what are the things you'll do which go beyond what the text of the agreement says and let's get the agreement bout what additional measures they will take which we wanted them do which they refused in the give and take of and did not get included in the final agreement. up hould not give unilaterally points which were negotiations. the would be my first caveat

about this state and then my remark and more important i suspect in some ways is note official says that does talk about it. and not prevent us from mplementing and enforcing our sanctions. as part of the enforcement of the nuclear related sanctions has designated dditional individuals and entities every few weeks because the iranians are creating new evade the der to sanctions, new front companies, people they can work with to try to evade the existing sanctions. very k it would be important for the administration o continue the process of designating individuals and ntities under existing u.s. sanctions rules. why? because if the united states down the pace s of such designations, then iran ill be able to evade the sanctions more successfully.

motivation for iran agreeing to any kind of agreement whether it's the first step agreement or the prospective comprehensive solution is that iran is feeling pressure because of the sanctions. if iran feels it can evade the will have less reason to reach a comprehensive solution. so, the success of negotiations f comprehensive solution requires maintaining that kind of pressure on iran that is only possible if the united states to designate additional individuals and into their evaluation of these holding sanctions. i would the administration's feet to the what this agreement is saying. to see that actually done.

other example of the limited character of this deal. number of things hich the counties pledge to do and which iran pledges to do but here are no limitation schedule. indeed iran would be within its rights to waited until the 179th day of the agreement to take of the steps that are outlined there are no obligations to take these things immediately. that should be our attitude towards the obligations which is to say that think it would be a serious mistake for the united states and other p five plus one partners to feel compelled to implement at a rapid pace that if iran is not outlining their obligations. press seen now credible

reports about a high level the u.s. deb ving paoutty secretary of state mr. urns and his counter part that were taking place parallel to and ublic negotiations frankly the private ones are important more. kind of a channel there would be discussion about the mplementation schedule and a lear understanding that the implementation by one side will phased in response to the steps taken by the other side. wou at can it thisof the reporting about agreement states that it is a six month agreement.

misleading, y highly misleading. if you read the text of the plan of action what you discover is that the two parties commit themselves to the first -- the first step would be time bound with a duration of by months and renewable mutual consent. during which all parties will work if you read the text of maintain a constructive atmosphere for negotiations in good faith. the only obligation is to have a constructive atmosphere for negotiations in good faith. negotiating a climate change treaty for 25 years in good faith and we haven't gotten yet.e when it turns to the description bout the comprehensive solution, we are told that comprehensive solution which the aim to conclude

egotiating and commence, commence implementing no more than one year after the adoption of th document.intain a constructive i aim to exercise more and i aim to lose weight, so this is what to do.ties aim that is diplomatic which is this is what we like to do or hope to do but we're not committing ourselves this. in fact, this agreement is an which has an initial period of six months and and i would sent suggest that if at the end of a months there has not been successful conclusion of a comprehensive solution, then political e the pressures to say, oh, well, we give up. so.on't think i think that in fact there would be extraordinary political five plus onehe p countries to continue the

what wasns to say that good enough for six months is good enough for the next six let us keep talking with iran. we always said it would take us year to negotiate the comprehensive solution and to commence implementing it. for at to keep going least another six months. at the end of a year what will happen? i would suggest the same process, indeed i would suggest the same process would happen if for egotiations drug out six years or 60 years. i cannot see any circumstances nder which it would be politically acceptable for the plus one to not renew this agreement i don't knows we say observed by iran. the greatest fear around of the critics the world. certainly this is the big fear hat we hear from the israel

government. it's not like they're saying or ld you have gotten this that. no. the heart and core is that this to be nt is likely not the elements of the first step instead in the details of the last step. there is not likely to be more that i am quite of thisd that the focus document is on a process which going there is no senses of a time limit. limit or date e or statement saying at the end of six months two sides this is a ecause permanent solution everything goes back to start one. that's explicitly stated. you heard that in a number of but i don't think ate going to be very easy to accomplish. that if that's your objective ought to say it and preferably you should put it in here. good ideaink it was a to put in provisions about time

extensions. step ements of a first many in defended by the administration on the basis not well, okay, it's perfect. fine. but don't worry we'll have a comprehensive solution. well, i hope so but i'm not sure that's the case. furthermore, i'm not sure the what willive solution it contain? because when we return to the here about the lements of the final step of a comprehensive solution everything's up for grabs in that the way in which the text there's going to be agreed limits on the scope enrichment activities and enrich the

to be for a period agreed upon. way, the united says when the document that the comprehensive involve mutually enrichment programs the administration said if we can't each agreement on all those perimeters then there won't be any enrichment. so the administration is talking good talk about saying that look everything is up for grabs. so we don't know very much except that we'll talk about all stuff. that concerns me. the way, perimeters then document does n nclude any mention of an issue which i would have thought would have been included in any comprehensive solution because it's included in every security

counsel resolution which is that he security counsel of resolution about iran's nuclear in link iran's nuclear activities with its pursuit of delivery means for weapons. iran has been developing missile which are too inaccurate to unconventional weapons which are designed to that are large enough to be nuclear weapons. resolution counsel have always called upon iran to uspend not only its enrichment activities but its missile iran has til demonstrated its intentions of nuclear program.

mention that there's going to be any kind of discussion about missiles in the comprehensive solution. and that's an example of the comprehensive he solution. by the way, one thing which certainly is not included in this agreement and which would be a serious misstep for us to feel that we need to do some kind of confidence building measure with iran floss mention here of what kind of iran will be playing in the middle region. saudis andear of the the other gulf arabs is that in is what's going to happen that the united states will get commitment from iran to make concessions on the nuclear front. in return, the united states oing to turn a blind eye to iran's playing a major solution. by the role in or. region we were not at the at the table on the table.

be we are the ones who will sacrificed and in this context involving iran in discussions about the future of syria is matter. iran is not welcome to in discussions until iran signs on to the principal what were agreed to in was called the geneva one conference about syria. to be a y there has government.to a new t's pretty fiftying kind of commitment. frankly, the rugs shins agreed to it and the u.s. intended this by d be a government led many of the same people now in his but not assad and family. the iranians have not signed up

the great fear that's iranians sent thousands, soldiers to fight inside syria

undermined western resolve with the iranian nuclear problem. we need a sensible agreement that are tax our middle east allies. uraniumend all iranian enrichment. we must shut down the centrifuge plants and stop all work on reactors permanently. we also require iran to provide full access to its nuclear sites. getting a sensible agreement with iran will be difficult. there are no shortcuts. stage, we setting the

have instead weaken support for sanctions. this is already driving tensions in the middle east. this is hurting relations with israel and saudi arabia. statesd cause regional to be concerned about where american policy of cutting. i believe the iranian nuclear program is a deeply flawed deal. it is imperative for congress to encourage president obama to take a tougher approach in talks with iran. in my opinion, this bad deal is much worse than no deal. >> thank you.

>> i will hold my questions. >> please when you ask a question, identify yourself and at the end of the second sentence if i don't hear a , i will stop you. no speeches from the floor. >> i am looking at statements by the iranian foreign ministry. the website of the white house has released a fact site which is a one-sided interpretation. some of the explanations contradict the text of the joint plans action that is part of the geneva agreement. uranium foreign ministry has also decided on one-on-one talks -- the rainy and foreign ministry has also decided on one-on-one talks. this suggests that some power struggle within the iranian

leadership -- the foreign ministry would come out. statement? seen any >> there was a lead -- a letter written by rouhani. it was a lukewarm endorsement. today, the response of hardliners in iran said it was no big deal. with the foreign ministry today, we see several things. they are scurrying backwards. with commitments, we can always back out. the white house, the statement on the website was wrong. that was embarrassing.

those of us who were relying on that thought, wait a minute, wait a minute. good that the white house rushed it out right away. talks, ie bilateral talked to reporters who saw these people. they were in geneva and they were talking. the greater point is that there was a power struggle inside iran. there are many skeptics in iran. were they trying to scuttle a deal? leadershipe iranian has been clear about where their self-interest lies. if they scuttle this deal, world opinion would be so that.

it would be disastrous for iran's interests. another thing would be disastrous for iran's interests. trashing the british embassy was a stupid move. restaurant.p a [laughter] it was a dumb idea. it would be disastrous for iran. they could do something disastrous. morning, i would say there was some interesting scurrying backwards. quickly that if you compare the white house fact sheet to the agreement, with the agreement actually says, there is a significant dissimilarity. the agreement. steps are not in the agreement.

don't rely on the white house statement. >> the leadership often takes actions which go against iran's national interests and the interests of iran people. but they lined the narrow a ideological interests of the elite. think, isn press, i an echo chamber that is even more confusing than the washington press. >> other questions? >> back to you, and then we will get you next. said,light of what you first, is there any realistic thing that congress could do to stop congress. not requirent does that the united states does

anything. question, what is the realistic probability that the rainy and cheated, no matter how seriously, that the administration would then take action? pressurek there is that congress put on the administration. the administration wants to sell this deal to the american people. there is strong bipartisan opposition and it is the link. theyey can make a case, will not force the president to demand a treaty. it is going to be an uphill battle. members of congress and staff have to read it very carefully. that that the agreement explicitly recognizes the different roles of congress.

well the administration will refrain from imposing new sanctions, it does pay lip service to the role of congress. it could ratchet up sanctions, particularly if the sanctions are held off until iran violates the agreement. if the negotiations actually ends, and i agree patrick. this could go on forever. congress could ratchet up pressure independently of what the administration does. that, sometimes the obama administration -- had i been in the obama administration, my approach to the current discussion about ancient legislation would've been to say to congress, we all want to see progress towards a competent the solution. the best way to achieve that is

to a bigger carrots and bigger stacks. you are talking about a bigger stick. fine, great. let's pair that with a bigger carrot. the legislation you are talking about, but it's her a provision that gives the president a way to impose solutions -- sanctions on iran in case there is no solution. it would be difficult for congress to vote on that sort of waiver authority for the president, but i would've paired that with a bigger carrot, bigger stacks -- stick. that is a mantra that you hear a lot. if you have a bigger carrot and a bigger stack -- stick. >> how much will $6 billion in sanctions really help iran? administration is

trotting out various numbers. you talk about $4.2 billion frozen bank accounts. an extra $400 million is often mentioned that is frozen for students. they estimate the petrochemical sales will be higher. has a lot of gold and had difficulty using that goal because of u.s. sanctions. it would not be difficult for iran to make use of its goals -- gold. as far as the petrochemical exports, it is way below where iran after chemical exports were in the pre-sanction. . period.e pre-sanction

consensus among oil traders these days is that iran will be able to a -- increase its oil experts best export. goldu throw in a bunch of and petrochemical exports, you get to something that is well above $10 million. annualielis say, let's ze that. it will be at least $20 billion a year. probably $30 billion a year. bill is only in the order of 30-40,000,000,000 dollars per year -- $30 billion- $40 billion per year. it will be tough for the government budget.

yes, there'll be a large deficit. iran goes into the situation with a national jet -- that -- --they haveratio understated it. they are declaring debt at 10%. it is certainly way below the debt to gdp ratio here in united dates. yes, they will have to run a large budget, but they can do it. >> anybody else? >> another question. >> just wait for microphone. is, that then panelists providers of a on different stances

the administration has taken on the iran nuclear talks compared to the previous administration? >> the bush administration relied on, more heavily on, the bargaining leverage afforded by the credible threat of military option. there is no coincidence that iran froze its nuclear per gram between 2003-2005, after the and invaded iraq afghanistan on either flank of iran. iranians thought that they might be next. they prudently chose to freeze that. one of the mistakes that the obama administration is making -- the carter administration --

the obama administration. [laughter] >> a natural mistake. >> yes. the obama administration has downgraded the threat of a potential military option. a white house spokesman denounced sanctions as a road to war that the american people do not want. the american people do not want a wrote -- a war with a nuclear iran after it is are. is armed.t administration said in very weak terms that the military option is on the table. there hasn't to press that button on iran. thereby it loses leverage in the negotiations. >> there is an obsession to get a deal with iran since the president came to office. basically taking the threat of military action off the table

for all intents and purposes is something that the iranians have recognized. >> right here in the center. >> thank you. that a firsting is step towards an actual resolution -- if this fails, what likelihood doesn't have on either leaving the iranians open towards further negotiations are moving more wholeheartedly toward completing the nuclear program? >> that depends. there's a perception about the united states across the world that iran walked away from its own deal. iran cheated, i wasn't negotiating and could save basket they -- good faith. it will be a tough atmosphere for a rock, it will be isolated internationally.

instance, might welcome military action against the iranians. there has been much discussion about the limitations that israel faces with its military as it is quite small. but israel has twice destroyed heavywater reactors like those in iraq. they have twice been told by the u.s. that it will be a disaster they did it. twice they did it and twice it was a great success. i'm sure they would not listen to our guys, but it does not matter. it is unprotected. that becomes conceivable. on the other hand, there is a perception that the united fault, which was at provocative actions by the united dates which led to the breakup of the talks, the u.s. was being unreasonable, then increases.

the shaping of public perceptions about what is going wrong is pretty important for shaping options going forward. -- i think talks will continue. this deal will not collapse. theadministration and europeans will never admit this through the end of the administration. the end of the reporting regime -- the rouhani regime like stocks. there'll be more toxin this will continue. talks and this will continue. >> this reminded of a saturday night live skit. the guest would not leave. john belushi was always there. there, thehe is hostess is obligated to continue feeding him. that is one of the reasons why am concerned with some of these engines being relieved. -- these sanctions being

relieved. the iranian people will have adequate sustenance. >> yes, ok. that itsrael decided needs to attack, will they be able to rely on the saudi's for support? what that support be political? have anysaudis military assets to put on the table? or would it be israel by itself? >> let me take a shot at this. there was a story in the london sunday times, two sundays ago, about alleged meetings between the israelis and the saudis in which the saudis gave the israelis permission to use their airspace. i'm skeptical of those are arts.

if israel launched a preventative strike, the saudis would privately welcome it. if not publicly. iranfeel just as brent by and israel. this is not just an israel question. the saudis and other countries, turkey, iraq, though it has fallen into the shadows, does not want to see the way, they do not want to see an iran with nuclear weapons. i am not sure that there are the explicit saudi-israeli cooperation. we will not stop you when you go through. i doubt there will be any kind of written agreement on that. >> let's just talk about the saudi-israeli elaboration. -- collaboration.

that shows how serious the situation is. i do not know these reports are accurate, but it shows that the direction of u.s. policy towards iran is alienating to of are more important allies in the middle east. >> i have one. i will ask this and then you guys can segue from his answer into your closing comments. a lot has been made by the administration that this is not a big deal. if this doesn't work out, at the end of the six-month, we can set of sanctions again. everything will be fine. i'm not a big fan of sanctions. they have not worked well. this was one of the tightest sanctions we have been able to establish. how accurate do you think it is that we can turn these sanctions the on what we have allowed europeans and the asians and everybody to start selling and buying things from iran.

>> it depends who gets blamed for things falling apart. if the perception is that the a rainy and walk away from the fashion,a spectacular which they may do, then the reaction around much of the world will be, oh, they brought it on themselves. don't forget that a lot of the reason we have cooperation for the sanctions regime, it has to do private companies. it has to do a private companies siding that they do not want to tangle with the united states about things like the banking system. and financial transfers. i suspect that another factor involved here is how clever iran is in terms of foreign companies. their track record has been dreadful. >> i would just say that i do not think sanctions alone.

the arena nuclear program. they did not stop north korea. iran has a stronger economy and the north korean basketcase economy. one of the reasons that many countries went along with the sanctions was because they could rationalize that it keeps those crazy americans from attacking iran. it is clear to many by now that the obama administration is not exactly crazy about using leverage afforded by military threat. that one actually increased temptations to back off the sanctions elsewhere. reinsertionad to a of business as usual. it will be difficult to reestablish the sanctions afterwards. >> i agree that, but i would add that it was easy for the europeans to justify sanctions against iran. , thethe president of iran

former president of iran, is running around talking about wiping israel off the map. the new president is media savvy and will not a such thing. with the sanctions being weekend it willd --weakened, be difficult to re-examine the sanctions. the global consensus is that these sanctions have been broken by this agreement. >> i will give you one last chance here. audience, any other questions? please join me in thanking the panelists. [applause] i would encourage all of you to continue to follow this object. it will not go away. it is one of the most important issues that we have to follow. if you have additional questions, send them to us and we will get into jim or either of the analyst. thank you very much.

>> the administration released a draft proposal today. politico wrote that the administration is proposing stricter rules regarding nonprofit. proposal the social

welfare for nonprofits. politicaluge intimate -- if they engage in too much thetical activity -- president had the first major response to a report today. there is a key party conservative group seeking tax- exempt and. eric s isater today, nasa administrator charles bolden. that is 90 minutes and it will be at 7:00 a.m. east earn on a stand. span.eastern on c-

>> on november 25, 1963, one million people lined the route of president jfk's bureau session two arlington national cemetery -- ural precession -- procession two arlington national cemetery stop. >> a discussion today about defense policy. including the recent nuclear deal with iran.

and sequestration budget cuts. this is about one hour 20 minutes. >> thank you all for coming. i'm sorry i am not make. -- nick. i will briefly introduce michelle and philip. there are a number of people in the audience who were out here he can verbally better weather last year. undersecretarye of policy. she was the principal advisor to the secretary of defense. she helped formulate national defense policy and oversaw military fund operations. i interviewed for a number of times and she was very cautious. we know she knows a lot, but she never told as much. she is also a senior fellow at harvard.

she is a member of a defense policy board. for newunded the center american securities, a think tank that you will know. she is also a member of a strategy group. philip is a professor at university of virginia and is also a dean of arts and sciences. as a child, he began by getting into arguments, i love that. i want to put that into my resume. trial and appellate lawyer in texas doing criminal justice. there's so much more here. he was an adviser to secretary of state condoleezza rice. when i first met him, he was a counselor to the department is a. -- of state. he worked for president bush and president obama. he has written a number of

walks. -- book.s i read one of them, it was very good. he wrote it with condoleezza rice. he is also a member of a strategy group and he directed from 2000-2003. by -- start by asking michele and philip a few questions and then open it up to e.e audience pulls out we are in a transitional. -- we are in a transitional period of defense. areasssons from earlier of american history guiding us now? when we both answer that question? >> good afternoon everybody. it is wonderful to see so many familiar faces around the table. i do think there are some lessons to be learned from our

--tory in terms of keyword periods like this where we are coming out of a decade of war. we are facing severe budget pressures. there are two lessons that come to mind. the first is the strategic lesson. that is, when american comes out of the. period-- comes out of a of war, we are tempted to turn inward. to allow the isolationist impulse to assert itself quite powerfully. when i look at the world, fundamental changes are happening with new powers rising. changes in the balance of power in key regions from asia to the middle east. turmoil in the middle east. continued challenges of terrorism and al qaeda challenges.

it is a dynamic and volatile environment. which itproblems for is difficult to imagine solutions without sola catalyzing an intern national someone -- without catalyzing an international response. american prosperity and security depend on remaining engaged in the world in shaping events happen far from our shores. role tohave a unique in catalyzing international action to deal with unique challenges that we face. we need to resist that temptation to turn inward and away from the world. yes we have to focus on getting our economic course -- house in order. we also have to staying gauged in the world to ensure our own prosperity in the future. the second lesson is more

tactical. that is, as we have come out of wars in the past, typically the house budget needs to be balance. we tend to bounce too much of -- we cut readiness in moderation disproportionately. thatd up with a force looks good on paper, but it does not have the capabilities it needs in practice. as i look at this period we are in now, particularly with the straitjacket of sequestration and the inflexibility of these across-the-board mandated cuts, i am worried. our mistakes of hauling out the force. hollowing out the force. we need to put emphasis on pulling resources out of inefficient and too large

enterprises. we need to maintain readiness in moderation for the future where we can. my paper begins with a paragraph , i would like to go over it here. it is very historically oriented. a set of four assertions, all of which are paradoxical. assertion is that despite constant headlines, especially about troubles in the world, the country is remarkably safe and secure at the moment. number two, american levels of defense spending are nonetheless still at near historic highs. they are measured in constant dollars in various ways. even when accounting for

projected cut. cuts. number three, these expenditures are poorly advocated -- allocated. this is likely to get worse. inefficiency in the sense of expenditures that are actually not relevant to producing a fax ects thatge -- eff change the material conditions we care most about in the world. therefore, number four, high spending in a. -- high spending in a period of low threat is buying less and less meaningful defense for situations not to far in the future that could be more threatening than they are right now. paperall attention in the , and i offer a theory of

defense. entropy is a term for a from classical mechanics having to do with the degenerating amount of energy that is being put to useful effect. larger and larger parts of the defense budget, largely devoted to things that are not really related very much national defense. defense isnational one of the talking points used to defend programs on any number of occasions. wherew this after 9/11 theughout the 1990s, defense establishment had become less and less relevant to the way the world is changing. after 9/11, huge adjustment had to be made. on topre mostly bolted with marginal additional increases in spending on top of that. in order to develop new capabilities that were basically

strapped in an ad hoc way onto the old established capabilities. they have now intern become part of the space. they are being cut knees on inefficient ways. and inefficient ways. i also make a conceptual argument about how one can reorient these strategies along the lines of fast requirements and flow requirements. posture isefense oriented in the exact opposite way from how it should be oriented. fast requirements call for high readiness forces ready for extremely high tempo operations. exhaustingly high tempo, round- the-clock, 24-hour, hyper intense operations. will probably pass their decisive moment in the first days of conflict. the force of the need to that

sort of conflict need to be fairly close and highly ready. their size need not be extremely great. for conflict scenarios which you can use forces that could be made available slowly. for instance, the simmering transnational conflicts in which america might offer twice and assistance in different ways. from those offer -- from those observations, i offer a number of suggestions, some of them forcel, that idealize structures that will be hard for the country to move to. there are history lessons, abundant history lessons, and one of them was actually described in a paper for the strategy group session as some of the most fertile and creative periods in american defense

spending, occurred during periods of cuts and retraction. the most fertile decade in american armed forces with the 1920's. , but thehe 1930's 1920's. another critical period was the late 1940's. of the eisenhower administration. there were cuts and retrenchments after the seemingly unlimited spending that was unleashed by the outbreak of the korean war. they try to re-strain the defense budget for the remainder of the 1950's and made choices that resulted in the cold war defense posture that dominated

the subsequent decades. in contrast to the era of the , as i, the 1990's describe my paper, are the decade that the locust has eaten. significant adjustments were not made. it was the kind of military industrial complex that eisenhower warned about in 19 the one. -- 1961. when the cold war ended, that is when the real test began about whether those institutions would endure and the answer was, very well indeed. 2000's, they did not reorient parts of the defense establishment, but instead crafted new pieces on top of them that we are uneasily reckoning with now. history seemsour

to be coming to a close of a new chapter is getting. >> thank you. are youove ahead, confident that the obama administration and congress can agree on defense cuts that do not impair significantly the ability of the united dates to remain the world's dominant superpower. >> no. that there is an outline of at least a small budget deal. when you talk to reasonable members of both parties of congress, and there are still some people in that category, you can come up with some mechanisms for increasing revenue and some mechanisms for thataining or reducing

could at least get us to a small budget deal for the next 2-3 years. avoidome relief to another round of sequestration and so forth. whether we can see our way through the political paralysis to get their is another question altogether. i am by nature an optimist who wants to believe that rationality will prevail. so far it has not. time, the imposition of sequestration to the recent shutdown and so forth. i am not confident at this point. i feel if the conversation we should be having is one of raising public awareness of some of the very real causes of sequestration on national

defense. agree phillip that there's a lot we can extract from the defense budget and reorient and spent in better ways. sequestration does not allow you to make cuts in a mall matter. you to cut the highest priorities along with the lowest priorities. to me, we have to help people understand the damage to readiness that is are you taken place, the ways in which we are breaking modernization programs that will be fundamental to safeguarding american military superiority and the ability to prevail the future, and we have to raise public awareness and congressional awareness about. the old caucus in congress that used to pull together on military issues is no longer. we have to start from scratch to have this conversation and build a port for a larger deal --

build support for a larger deal. >> i agree completely. i agree michelle. no one is going to lose money betting against executive congressional cooperation. aboutthink a little bit if you thought it could be fixed. processesthe basic conspired to make it very difficult to fix it the way we do strategy now. one way this work to some degree in the cold war is that there was a broad degree of consensus over relatively stable objectives. you have lots of arguments in the margins. that stable consensus over where was is pretty badly broken. without a clear vision to replace that, everyone defense their camp.

strategies are devised from the bottom up in both the pentagon and the congress. in the pentagon, requirements are generated through a process that michelle understands better than i do. i have tried. i will tell you that by the time that process would reach the level of michelle, it is not fully baked. it is substantially day. it is not impossible for a gifted bureaucrat michelle's level to move that ross is, but it is challenging. , but it is challenging. a lot of bargains have been strapped and he gets very hard even to the pentagon leadership to fundamentally reorient it. in the congress, a parallel processes happening. it originates in the congressional districts and with constituent enterprises.

works its way up through individual congressmen. at the top level, we decry an absence of leadership. thent you to see, among most highly motivated congressmen and secretaries of defense, the system makes it to makey difficult agile, strategic moves for reorientation. it is not impossible to beat this. you had a very high degree of clarity at the top, and that clarity was shared by key congressional leaders, and , asght in in a deep way perhaps has occurred in recent years, but i have not been it -- you are bringing in key committee chairs into the formative stage of national defense strategy and then working back from that consensus, backwards, to drive your respective processes. then there will be a chance.

if you conclude there's not a chance in entropy will win, third-seeded adjustment will only occur adding in earlier marginal spending on the top. then we will be inevitably frustrated by how much we need to spend for so little apparent effect. >> i want to jump in on this. i do not disagree with the notion that there is a lot of bureaucratic inertia that drives how the department of defense to find its requirements and even its senses strategy. where top- occasions down leadership and intervention has really shifted the course. with thee saw this development of strategic guidance in 2012 full once congress passed the budget we had act of 2011,

fundamentally new resource constraint. people who just ask write strategy in the department to figure this out, the president actually said that this requires some fundamental rethinking. we need to do this is a group of leaders. he asked the secretary, the chairman, the combatant to multiple meetings in the cabinet room as a group. check your parochial hat at the door. they really engaged with the leadership in an active way to recraft the strategy. articulategy helped rebalancing and helped focus on middle east strategy.

infocused on taking risks area of prolonged counterinsurgency. we want to reduce some of our ground forces coming out of two wars. there is an effort emphasizing partner engagement. from ciber to intelligence to reconnaissance to robotic systems, etc.. there was a whole range of priorities that came out of that exercise. it was top-down driven. that became the bible for the next round of the budget enterprise. more than any other strategy to budget exercise that i have been, and i have in through a lot. i have the scars to show it. that strategy drove real shifts in the budget. maybe that is the exception that proves the rule. is that in-ot see

depth engagement of congressional leadership. what you talked about. i do agree that it is necessary to rebuild a bipartisan sense of where we are going with defense. >> i share michelle's positive remarks about strategic guidance. i played no hands in crafting it. but i think in many ways it is an admirable document. in some ways, you can use it as a benchmark. you can accept the actual in the that are apparent x billions of dollars in nominal bowl -- nominal objectives. on to news.ve i want to ask you both about the iran deal.

it is hard to imagine that when you are at the state department that this would happen when you are by the condoleezza rice. >> forgive me. the origins of it actually did happen when i was there. i mean that quite seriously full the origins of this move were in the spring of 2006. >> that is true. >> it was hotly criticized at the time when many of these same people participating in today's debate. mind worth keeping that in if i can strike a bipartisan note, important to keep in mind. it was initiated with no preconditions. it negotiations with the islamic republic of iran, even while iranian operatives were killing americans in iraq and a lot of. -- and so on. because of that move, which the iranians substantially struck,

the united states was then able to get the foundational council resolutions that had been the premise for everything that happened in the last evan .5 years. resolutions that everyone told us we could not get. building the framework for the global coalition, which by the way is an astonishing diplomatic in 2006.nt, we got it it was carried forward with great effect by the obama administration. if you think about the global coalition which has crippled the iranian economy and the geopolitical significance of that coalition and that that coalition has been created and stored for more than 7.5 years to reach to the present moment, that is extraordinary bipartisan accomplishment that i think has received very little notice. many of the critics today were the critics of the initial move

in the spring of 2006. it is therefore worthwhile to remember how much bipartisan work, and work by professional bureaucrats, has been involved in directing the coalition we have today as we contemplate what diplomacy we need to sustain it and sustainable -- momentum behind it. >> these things in washington often follow me. from the point of view of the governments --di let's talk about t i